2018-00227170-CU-DF

Maureen LaPierre vs. Efrain Gonzalez

Nature of Proceeding: Hearing on Demurrer

Filed By: Smith, Edward A.

Defendant Efrain Gonzalez’ (Gonzalez) demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

Plaintiff Maureen LaPierre’s (LaPierre) sur-reply is STRICKEN. The Code of Civil

Procedure does not authorize such a document, and LaPierre did not obtain leave of court before filing it.

Gonzalez’ requests for judicial notice are GRANTED.

This appears to be the latest in a series of interrelated disputes involving Gonzalez and LaPierre. Based on the attachments to LaPierre’s complaint, it appears Gonzalez performed a medical procedure on LaPierre in 2011, after which LaPierre alleged genital mutilation and perhaps other injuries. It further appears the Placer County District Attorney prosecuted Gonzalez directly or indirectly for LaPierre’s alleged injuries, and that Gonzalez pleaded no contest to misdemeanor offenses and relinquished his medical license. In addition, attachments to the complaint describe Gonzalez’ efforts to obtain a civil restraining order against LaPierre after she picketed close to his residence. In response to Gonzalez’ civil harassment claim, LaPierre prevailed by way of an anti-SLAPP motion, and Gonzalez’ claim was dismissed.

LaPierre’s charging pleading in this case is captioned “Complaint for Damages for Defamation, Slander.” The complaint is predicated on Gonzalez’ alleged testimony in various judicial or administrative proceedings that LaPierre harassed his children. LaPierre alleges the testimony was false, was malicious and resulted in reputational injuries.

An attachment to the complaint discloses that LaPierre previously sued Gonzalez and others in Placer County Superior Court for defamation and other torts. The complaint in that case was captioned a “Slappback” action under CCP § 425.18.

Gonzalez now demurs on grounds the allegations are uncertain and fail to state facts sufficient to state a valid cause of action. LaPierre opposes.

The demurrers are sustained with leave to amend.

First, the complaint is uncertain because LaPierre conflates different judicial and/or administrative proceedings. In any first amended complaint (FAC), LaPierre is encouraged to use subheadings or otherwise clarify what exactly Gonzalez said in each proceeding.

The demurrer for failure to state a cause of action is also sustained with leave to amend. In their current form, the allegations can only be construed to establish defamatory statements Gonzalez made while testifying in formal administrative or judicial proceedings. Whether made in judicial proceedings or administrative (quasi-judicial) proceedings, Gonzalez’ alleged sworn testimony cannot support a defamation cause of action. (See Silberg v. Anderson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 205, 211-212 [the litigation privilege is an absolute bar to defamation claims]; see id. [“[T]he privilege applies to any communication (1) made in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings; (2) by litigants or other participants authorized by law; (3) to achieve the objects of the litigation; and (4) that have some connection or logical relation to the action”].) Because the only cause of action identified in the complaint is for defamation, purported exceptions to the privilege in cases of perjury or malicious prosecution do not apply.

Disposition

The demurrers are sustained with leave to amend.

No later than 6/28/18, LaPierre may file and serve an FAC; response(s) due within 30 days thereafter, 35 days if the FAC is served by mail.

Although not required by any statute or rule of court, LaPierre is requested to attach a copy of the instant minute order to the FAC to facilitate the filing of the pleading